Pay2Play Ceci Connolly has an article out summing up the reaction she’s seeing to Max Baucus’ health care plan:

As they scoured the 223-page document, many of the most influential players found elements to dislike, but not necessarily reasons to kill the effort. Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers.

In order of appearance, here are the people she cites in her article (I’ve bolded the ones she has actual quotes from):

Max Baucus

Obama

Liberal Democrats and allies, particularly labor unions

Republicans

Major industry leaders and interest groups

White House strategists

Obama

John D. Rockefeller

Lawmakers and lobbyists

Ron Wyden

Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation

Leaders of the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business

Drugmakers and hospitals

Kenneth E. Thorpe, an Emory University professor and Clinton administration official (noting that health care providers stand to make more than they’ll lose)

Max Baucus

Several trade associations

The medical device industry (dsecribed "recruiting" four senators to roll back fees on its industry)

One White House aide

In all, Ceci presents a landscape in which the most important players–aside from two Senators who have been slighted in the process thus far–are trade industry groups. And the most important issue for them is the profit they stand to make off of taxing America’s middle class to make them wealthier.

Now, to be fair to Pay2Play Ceci, that’s unashamedly the point of her article–that while the bill has pissed off Democrats and Republicans, it has thus far lulled the industry with dreams of forthcoming riches.

But behind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact.

And also to be fair to Pay2Play Ceci, it’s clear that these players were the prime movers behind this bill. The story is absolutely accurate–though that doesn’t mean it has any business being told.

Nothing demonstrates the degree to which actual politicians–much less their constituents–have become mere bystanders as the health care industry crafts up a plan to get 30 million new captive customers.

One more point on this (so I can count this as my daily thrashing of the WaPo). An article like this is the natural outcome of the WaPo’s attempt to be a broker of the key players (not surprisingly, the same industry hacks highlighted here) in the health care debate. From the time Katharine Weymouth first recruited Pay2Play Ceci to invite her clients sources to the Pay2Play salons, it pretty much guaranteed that Pay2Play Ceci would come in at precisely this moment and present the industry’s judgment–that they’d be perfectly happy getting 30 million new customers with almost no payback–as "news."

The one guaranteed good thing arising out of this is, given the nature of the surgery, he won’t be out anytime soon walking through fields twisting, turning and bending to aim his shotgun. This might knock him out of wingshooting for the whole year. So, safety returns to the hunting world.

Well, it probably will not leave him all gymnast-limber or anything – with lumbar stenosis, by the time you get to surgery your back is pretty much done. He’ll likely wind up having a hard time walking around the block.

I particularly hate this tactic for how much it feels like a second generation con. I did wonder ever so briefly if you might feel somehow vindicated in being driven to this tactic, by some number of commenters in the FDL firmament having clearly indicated they Won’t Get Fooled Again into reading one of your conspiracy theories? Then the concern faded, probably because I don’t care anywhere nearly as much about that as I despise finding myself flat on my keister looking skyward having once again naively expected the football to be there.

After a front-page Wall Street Journal story and a quote in the Washington Post, NRF’s Neil Trautwein appeared on CNBC and FOX Business to talk about a letter that Wal-Mart sent to President Obama supporting the idea of employer mandates for health care. Trautwein said NRF was “flabbergasted” by Wal-Mart’s decision to support employer mandates.

And here is a good blog post from this summer which seems to hit on some of the Walmart motive.

I don’t have time to look into this, but just from the excerpt that you have posted, the problem I see is: NO competition in this bullshit.

Maybe Wall Street requested that WalMart make this statement?
In my state, Costco, Starbuck’s, and other businesses have slammed WalMart b/c they believe that their employees should have medical, but trying to compete against WalMart when your costs per employer are higher is tough.

This looks like a runaround; evasive action to try and obfuscate the fact that without actual, legitimate competition health care will not be reformed.

Because ‘employer mandates’ is NOT the same thing as competition. It still leaves out millions and leaves small biz prey to huge health insurance corporations — economically disastrous for the larger economy.

Danger sign for the MaxTax folks–workers are already fed up BEFORE you screw them with this tax:

Raises, bonuses and other incentive programs have been slashed since the downturn began, and employees saddled with additional workloads for less pay are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their current position — or just plain burnt out.

If CNNMoney is running stories on worker burnout, the Villagers really need to start paying attention. Burnout followed by MaxTax just might result in burning torches accompanied with pitchforks…

I have been making this point often. It is not just raises, bonuses and incentive programs that have been slashed. People took pay cuts in the form of furloughs. Then picked up additional work load as others were laid off. And there is no chance for a cost of living increase on the future horizon. Additionally, more furloughs may be in many folks near futures, just to keep their company afloat. Health care costs have been rising ever since furloughs were necessary (and prior). In addition to furloughs, benefits were still taken out to make up for the non-work weeks.

And homes in one’s neighborhood may also end up in foreclosure (especially if a large employer laid people off) dropping the value of each house in the neighborhood by as much as $8700 per foreclosed house. Eating away at equity.

Not to mention, eating away at the time our local sheriff’s department spends on actual safety measures when they are having to deal with so many foreclosures.

One of my fellow commuters has been informed that there won’t be a 4 percent cola this year. That money was going to pay for food and housing …. (The employer is actually using that money for much-needed infrastructure repairs and improvements.)

Yes, if unemployment continues its upward spiral (30% of the losses in my industry – construction) – then there will be LOTS of folks with free time to man the phones, get out in the streets, and do all sorts of unpleasantness that I’m sure both the Village and the Lords will positively hate.

Yeah, I don’t hear any voices from the Baucus Caucus screaming “Only 30 million new customers? Kill the bill!”

From the piece: “At the heart of the administration’s strategy — and Wednesday’s guarded optimism — is a collection of deals intended to neutralize the interest groups that helped defeat President Bill Clinton’s health-care overhaul 15 years ago.”

The WaPo is too important a mouthpiece for key players. Some friendly Moonie will find the cash to keep it operating, regardless of whatever Marcy writes. Perhaps they’ll do it BECAUSE of what Marcy writes, I just gotta a feeling that she really ticks off some of those folks.

alinaustex
The WaPo continues its death spiral spin out as as a mouthpiece of the corporate elite.
And if memory serves lil Ms CecI was one of the media monkeys that danced to the kkarl organ grinder music -if not first quoting out of context the “Al Gore invented the internet “meme she ceratinly repeated that misquoted lie -thus of course helping to bring gwb43 to his eight years of crime & corruption,
Ceci might as well go to work for Roger Ailes ( ARRRRGH ! )

EW you are so good
“Now, to be fair to Pay2Play Ceci, that’s unashamedly the point of her article–that while the bill has pissed off Democrats and Republicans, it has thus far lulled the industry with dreams of forthcoming riches.

But behind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact.

And also to be fair to Pay2Play Ceci, it’s clear that these players were the prime movers behind this bill. The story is absolutely accurate–though that doesn’t mean it has any business being told.”
———————————————————

Returning to small, independent teams like in the old days* might not be such a bad idea. As it is now, for a young guy who would be a driver, the easiest way to get a ride with a team is to be someone’s son or grandson, and staying on a team will require the kind of … flexibility … described in the article. Talent and desire, alone, don’t go too far anymore.

–

* I think back to the Andretti twins (Mario and Aldo) working nights with a third guy (who later quit racing and became a plumbing contractor) to build and rebuild their first stock cars (all this – especially the racing – over Mama Andretti’s strong objections) after working all day pumping gas and changing tires at a relative’s gas station. It worked out pretty well for them….

The decision here turns smartly on precedents said to bind the court in things it is required to consider, others it is bound to disregard, & what can done with what is left over. In not-that-many-years on the federal court bench, this judge has demonstrated a heightened sensitivity to the principle of deference, its corollaries & various subtle manifestations of each — and if not precisely a creative urge to interpolate & extend those, then a readily discernible propensity in favor of determining & applying the same, even when the result conveniences the interests of those in same political party as the president who nominated him.

That was fun! Anyway, there are many, many previous posts here on decisions by Judge Bates, going back almost to the dawn of emptywheelitude in 2005. IMO the upshot is that he is as conservative as a federal court judge can be yet adhere to the rule of law & this decision reflects that point of view [Just read it; it’s all obvious]; but it’s nowhere near intellectual dishonest, nor can I recall any serious accusation of him ever playing fast & loose with the facts or the Constitution, & I would defy you, or Leen or anyone else here who’s not encountered his name before, to demonstrate to us all how, exactly this decision is wrong in law.
I’m off for a meeting & anticipate returning thereafter fortified by a cup of early evening tea; I can’t tell you how much I am looking forward to this.

Fine; I know him a bit, & I’ve read a number of his decisions; you, on the other hand, apparently know him far better; & I’m very pleased with that, not the least because he’s never struck me as someone I’d enjoy sharing a beverage with, refreshing or otherwise.

More to the point is that I take it we’re all to infer you have some insider knowledge that dispels the actual words Judge Bates uses in this decision, as magical intonations that mean something different than their plain meaning; & that the concepts he refers to in this decision as obliging its result don’t actually carry their usual meaning, but instead implicate something quite different from that, or at least beyond how such are used in the many other cases where they’ve been used & their propriety endorsed on grounds ranging from solid technical to widely defensible policy.

But I’ve neither urged nor asked you or Leen or whoever else wants to jump in on this, to give up any confidence; or in the revealing of information which by such threatens anyone’s interest privacy interest; not anything of the sort. I haven’t thought I’d be in any way worthy of any such double secret sauce information, & I’m not suggesting any one else here is either [though of course they’re welcome to comment for themselves].

All I’ve asked for, & what I’m so looking forward to in a such state of anticipatory excitement, is for someone to get on with it: go ahead & get behind that curtain & dip your magic brainiac machine in the holy oil of double secret insider information, then draw on whatever insight your might have, and proceed to use it to tear this decision & reduce it to the shredded, soggy state you imply it so richly deserves.

I was born a quarter century too late to see Harry Houdini, but at least I’ll always have this.

Without reading the opinion, but with reading the longer law.com article, it looks like Bates is saying that instead of filing and asking for $$, a chunk of the plaintiffs were instead protected by the alternative remedy –

– that of being able to apply to Scott Bloch (when he wasn’t tied up having his hard drives illicitly erased by the Geek Squad, or his home raided by the FBI, or readying himself for investigation by the HJC, or engaging in his own notorious conduct) for divinve Office of Special Counsel intervention.

Oh fine; but you never used any special glasses, or deduced the existence of any secret ceremonies, or conjured up the specters of political payback, or anything like that; you just read. I could do that for myself. I did! Looks like a shitty state of affairs; but as to the decision extending political shenanigans through judicial corruption, maybe it’s like one of those magic eye pictures my own eyes are too old for.

Yeah I just did a quick trip through the opinion. Bates is on solid enough ground I think. What is, really, the monetary claim under Bivens? Is a decent question. specific performance of hiring by a different DOJ when the individuals are no longer intern level etc. people isn’t really amenable either. And there was an administrative remedy scheme. I dunno, we may not like it, but it isn’t the worst decision in the world.

They are so on the take any more. They must be selling propaganda in backroom deals now instead of selling it like avon at one of their employee’s social parties. Regardless, they are the worst of the “reputable” newspapers.

“But behind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact. As they scoured the 223-page document, many of the most influential players found elements to dislike, but not necessarily reasons to kill the effort. Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers.”

Who are some of these “interest groups?”:

“”This is the best start of any of the bills” circulating on Capitol Hill, said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation. Leaders of the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business were also generally positive about the Finance panel’s bill.

Most noteworthy, perhaps, were the organizations that held their firepower. Drugmakers and hospitals, two groups that struck early deals with the White House and Baucus, had little to say.”

yesterday’s LA Times had an editorial on ACORN. It mentioned that the ‘pimps’ were conservative activists, but didn’t mention that ACORN fired the staff members involved and scheduled training for others.
Just like the stories on ACORN and voter registration never mentioned that they’re required by law to turn in all the registration cards, no matter how fake the information appears to be.

If you are in their states, please consider calling Stabenow, Schumer, Rockefeller and Cantwell, all of whom are on the Senate finance committee and who have expressed reservations about the MaxTax, to commit to block this bill at the committee level. Any three of them working together should be able to do it. Then we can move forward with the Harkin bill instead. I don’t think we should allow this to get the full Senate, whether for a vote or for reconciliation. Let’s try to stop referral of this bill.

so does my blue dog congressman walt minnick. here’s the drivel he just sent me. i informed him that no longer has my confidence or support.

Dear XXX:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns and recommendations for health care reform. This is an important issue that will have long lasting consequences, and I appreciate your views.

I spent three decades running everything from a small garden store to a multi-national forest products company. So I understand all too well how frustrated people are with the high cost of insurance. Health insurance premiums have increased an average of 73% over the last five years, faster than wages and inflation. The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. Yet, we rank almost last in preventing deaths associated with treatable cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Idahoans expect and deserve better.

While, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, has many good provisions that will move our country toward the health care reform we need, I cannot support the bill as it is currently written. It will cost more than $1.6 trillion over ten years, leaving much of the cost to our children and grandchildren. It also relies on a government-run insurance plan, which would reduce competition and limit choices for the American people. I do not believe this is the best way to reform our health care system. However, I am encouraged by other ideas coming out of the Senate Finance Committee. I am hopeful that I will be able to vote for and support the final bill that the President signs into law.

My reservations about the current House bill do not serve as an endorsement of the current system. For far too long the federal government has failed to fulfill its duty to ensure Americans have access to quality health care. Congress must set the rules of the road under which health insurance companies and health care providers operate. This includes prohibiting discrimination based on age, employment status, and pre-existing conditions and setting a national standard for appropriate health care coverage. Once insurers and providers understand the rules, they will be able to adapt to provide affordable, quality coverage for the American people.

The discussion about health care reform is far from over, and I am hopeful that Congress will be able to come together to find a solution that will benefit all Americans. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me, and I apologize for the long delay in responding to your letter. Feel free to visit my website at http://minnick.house.gov for continued updates on my work, and do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in the future.

As you point out, this is Ceci doing the work she would do at one of the WaPoop’s parties-with-lobbyists-and-Congresscritters. Except that this she can write at home alone in her pajamas, not nursing an X-O cognac in G’town while twittering between her guests, tripping over the loose cash on the floor. It’s much cheaper for the Washington Post.

“Did Gale Norton, President Bush’s far-right interior secretary, illegally use her position to benefit an oil company that later hired her? Justice Department investigators want to know, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Right now, a critical mass of congressman swear they won’t vote for the bill without a public option and crucial senators won’t break a filibuster with one. I predict we end up with some kind of trigger.

Read this to learn about the horrors and total ineffectiveness of triggers

But behind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact.

the circle of life has fractured and our universe is comming to an end;

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don’t necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O’REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks

The JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the “sneak and peek” search provision of the PATRIOT Act, “John Doe” roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing “bulk collection” of the contents of Americans’ international communications, and prohibiting “reverse targeting” of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act…

Twas my thought too that repeal after the horses left the barn makes for strange law.

In any event, I agree too that passage would be an uphill battle, though chances are better now with Democratic control of Congress and the Executive branch compared to last year’s vote during the heat of a Presidential election.

I guess it depends on whether the Senate supporters can generate sufficient public animus against big lawbreaking corporations, but I’m not holding my breath on either Congressional passage (particularly in the Senate), nor an Obama signature.

Sorry, I don’t have a link. The whole thing was sent to me in an email from Mark Dorlester with no link.

I’d like to hear this proposal discussed in detail here, but with Feingold, Sanders, et al. presenting it, I have high hopes. I’m also very happy to see Hawaii’s Dan Akaka on board as an original sponsor.

That was an interesting development because it only mentions DoJ supporting three provisions, whereas there are a lot more than three in there in total. So an exceedingly odd way of framing the position. Very unclear whether this can reasonably be interpreted as meaning DoJ would not object to sunsetting everything other than those three things.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – “Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson might be among witnesses called to testify by Congress’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, its chairman told Reuters Television in an interview on Thursday.”

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law
By JESS BRAVIN

WASHINGTON –” In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

“During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court’s majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

“But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

“Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.””

Well, we shall see. One question/musing during an oral argument does not a position make. Now if she were to whip out a blistering dissenting opinion in CU v. FEC (and make no mistake, this court would not dream of altering corporate personage except to increase it) then we will have something to shout about and congratulate her for. I would be shocked if she is anywhere near that forward in her opinion (ifshe participates in a written dissent at all) on her first case heard; just don’t see it, but can hope.

I’m not hoping for an overturn of personhood, but I am hoping (not counting on, just hoping) for upholding the limitations on spending bc it is so bleak if they don’t. I didn’t hear the whole thing, but one thing I didn’t hear addressed is the argument that I think makes a lot of sense, which is that a corporation (as opposed to a company) is very much a creature of statute, since neither the Constitution nor the common law recognizes the concept of limited liability. When the founders were around, every owner of a company was completely liable for the bad acts of the company. If you statutorily create a different kind of being, then it seems to me you damn well can statutorily create limits on what they can do to go with the limits on liabilty that you have given them, and if they don’t like them the owners can opt out and function with full liability. Which does tend to temper actions – at least until they completely do away with plaintiffs lawyers and tort recoveries.

That argument is well briefed, irrespective of its role in the OA. There is less than zero chance of disturbing corp personhood, and frankly the reargument doesn’t occur if Roberts didn’t want it, I think they are going to blow up the restrictions. I would be shocked at any other result.

…Leon Panetta is confident that the DoJ’s new investigation into wrongdoing by CIA’s interrogators will absolve the Agency. “I don’t believe there’s a basis for any kind of action [against the interrogators]… and I’ll be proved right,” Panetta told reporters in Dearborn, MI, last night…

LOL –
I do think maybe you were a little tough on allan and Leen, in that I think they were mostly (allan went further, but still mostly) asking for input more so than stringing Judge Bates up.

If that’s the case, I’m going to go into one of my long, boring answers for them.
*********

Judge Bates’ decision shouldn’t be unexpected, especially given the District in which he sits. The DC Circuit has some very bad case law for plaintiffs, in particular a case called Spagnola. In that case, the plaintiff had originally won at the Circuit Ct level, but in another case (Hubbard) a different panel of the Circuit reached a pretty conflicting decision, so the full Circuit got together and used some newer Sup Ct language (not really precedent imo, just language) to do in plaintiffs. Like it or not (I’m in the not obviously) Spagnola is a horrible case for plaintiffs to try to get around and I think most Judges would have done what Bates did.

Spagnola says that in any case that can be squeezed into the parameters of 5 USC 2302 (a part of the codification of the Civil Services Reform Act “CSRA”) re: Prohibited Personnel Practices, then if there is a violation under that statute, the ONLY remedy available is the remedy provided by the CSRA, which would be to go to the Office of Special Counsel and complain. There is another route for people who are already employees for a couple of years and who face “major” personnel actions (see 5 USC 7511 et seq) that involves a merit board proceeding but it isn’t available to people who are injured by actions that prevent them from becoming an employee rather than by existing employees.

So with the bad case law of Spagnola, which is binding on Bates, I don’t think you can go overboard about the rulings. (I still think these guys could craft some good issues for appeal, but moving along …) And that means the “remedy” if you aren’t hired as a part of an extra-legal scheme by the top echelons of the Dept of Justice (including the AG) to circumvent the prohibitions of 5 USC 2302, your “exclusive” remedy (under Spagnola) is go to the the Office of Special Counsel (that is operates under and is supervised by the same AG who is allegedly involved in the concocting and perpetuating the scheme – and which Office, btw, in this unique case is also allegedly involved in similar practices) and have them investigate.

To go the next step, Spagnola and Bates say that if something can be fit under a 5 USC 2302 claim, then the CSRA is a “comprehensive scheme” such that remedies are limited to those provded by the CSRA (this argument, flipped, would have been why telecoms should have had to pay damages for participating in the DOJ’s FISA Felony Scheme) and that CSRA remedy is pretty lame – a picture of Bloch falling off a white horse that is really just a couple of DOJ extras dressed in some white sheets that apparently DOJ stocked up on during the Bush years.

Now, to give Bates his due, he does make an effort to keep some claims that he might have tossed. There are Privacy Act claims for which there is also bad case law in the Circuit, but he does manage to preserve some of them (although he is inviting further briefing from DOJ on how to get rid of them).

Judge Bates then gets rid of the “equitable” claims,for an injunction against future violations (which was kind of airy-fairy imo, asking the judge to enjoin on such a broad basis) based on a lack of standing.

As I noted, I don’t agree with his decision but a) with even the very small amount I know about cases in this area I would have told real client-type plaintiffs that they were likely to be sunk from the get go, and b) I don’t know very much about this kind of case at all. I do think he jumped the gun, getting rid of them at this mostly pre-discovery point in the process on general litigation principles, but he wasn’t wearing a Glen Beck mask when he wrote this opinion and he could have probably gotten by with ditching the Privacy Act claims that he is letting go forward.

BTW – one of the things I think they didn’t address was that, where 5 USC 2302 et al are being claimed to be a comprehensive scheme of legislation, 2302(d) says:

This section shall not be construed to extinguish or lessen any effort to achieve equal employment opportunity through affirmative action or any right or remedy available to any employee or applicant for employment in the civil service under—
(1) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
(2) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age;
(3) under section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (d)), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex;
(4) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicapping condition; or
(5) the provisions of any law, rule, or regulation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or political affiliation

I’m thinking that doesn’t sound to me as if Congress IS saying that the CSRT is meant to be so comprehensive as to cover all the political affiliation discrimination in civil service hiring after all, or even that it is trying to create a sole remedy standard and approach with the OSC investigation option, and that wasn’t addressed by Bates, but maybe it’s already been dealt with earlier or maybe no one briefed it or whatever. I don’t see any arguments on futility of administrative remedy, which I would have expected to see if it were briefed (this is a doctrine that says where there is an administrative remedy – like under the CSRA going to the Office of Special Counsel – you almost always have to follow it first[if not exclusively]before going to the courts UNLESS you can fit in a small category of cases where you prove it would have been a futile act to take the administrative remedy route).

I’m also thinking that it is hard to claim that Congress was meaning for the Act to be so comprehensive as to cover an organized scheme originating out of the office of the attorney general to implement a widespread program and pattern of discrimination based on political affiliation and to reduce investigation of such a scheme to being done by a subordinate officer to the scheme’s originator and by a department that may have been party to the same scheme. Tack on a lack of discovery and I find it a provocative (in the provoking sense) opinion, but nothing that anyone can go to pieces over.

@90 – not only what is the monetary claim, but how do you really “prove” that you would have gotten the job?

@99 I heard her, on NPR when this was argued, make the comment to Olsen on the old ruling, something like, “well, maybe the court got it wrong” and it was pretty funny. I was envisioning Thomas and Roberts having apoplexy.

@90 – not only what is the monetary claim, but how do you really “prove” that you would have gotten the job?

Can’t, and the specific performance type of issue has long sailed if they even pled it. As I recall, someone did a perfunctory “reconsideration” of all the rejects and found them to be – gasp- still rejected. These plaintiffs were likely wronged, but I am not crazy about the strength of their claims here. Bates’ decision is both predictable and on solid ground.

Just getting back. Mary thanks so much for that explanation. Not sure why a question like this @8 “What do folks know about Judge John Bates?” would end up being a wild hair up anyone’s ass. Certainly was not asked to aggravate anyone.

You lawyer folks talk about the way judges lean politically and how that may or may not influence their decisions quite often.

Shudder. Bet this will matter to many about as much as knowing (ignoring) that torture was used–and used to elicit “information” to justify (excuse) the invasion of Iraq.

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year
By REED ABELSON
September 17, 2009, 4:14 PM

“As the White House and Congress continue debating how best to provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans currently without health insurance, a new study (PDF) is meant to offer a stark reminder of why lawmakers should continue to try. Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States — a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.”

John Chandler Bancroft Davis (December 22, 1822 – December 27, 1907), commonly known as Bancroft Davis, was an American lawyer, judge, diplomat, and president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company.

From Worcester, Mass., it says, too. Why couldn’t he have stayed at home and kept out of trouble? But, no, he had to go get busy with all kinds of things, apparently. Including jotting down judicial asides.

Just a quick side note. Did you catch the Rockefeller interview on the Ed Show? Jay made a strong point regarding the lack of good faith negotiations by the Republicans (starting at 4:40) and emphasized his point with reference to his years on the intel committee. It’s worth watching in terms of the torture debate.

Made me wonder if the real issue here for Republicans is not just to try and kill progressives as a power play through trying to make health care fail, but as an effort to derail the issue of torture?

It appeared to me there was a “connect” in Jay’s mind, perhaps beyond the political strategy by the Repugs.

Made me wonder if the real issue here for Republicans is not just to try and kill progressives as a power play through trying to make health care fail, but as an effort to derail the issue of torture?

I had the same sense you did about Rockefeller, as if he’s somehow ‘liberated’ by something that he didn’t share on that program. Either he’s fed up completely, or he sees the GOP as a pack of pathetic scoundrels that he has had to tolerate politely while he patiently waited for other pieces to come together.

As for the ‘real issue’, I’m wondering whether:
1. The GOP is stalling and trying to avoid the topic of ‘torture’ coming up
2. The GOP is further stalling any discussions of economic culpability, and with news items about Paulson possibly being called to testify, and also about Iran using Western banks to launder money so they could buy their nuclear materials, it seems certain that the GOP is going to fling whatever sh*t they can invent to avoid allowing the financial fraud and money laundering topic to hit the public’s awareness
3. Call me nuts, but that strange Ortiz woman who’s heading up the ‘birther’ extremists seems awfully close to the Likud wing in Israel; I can’t tell whether this is just noise from them, or an attempt at diverting the conversation from Obama’s insistence that Israel clean up its act.

Watching John Bolton lose it yesterday over Obama’s decision — backed by the US military commanders — to pull back missile systems from Eastern Europe really underscored for me how dangerously the neocons subverted the US military. Basically, Bolton was saying that the military command doesn’t know its arse from a hole in the ground; how in hell do you ‘reason’ with a nut like that?

And Ortiz has to be somehow connected with the neocon-Likud extremists, so that appears to be one more of their attempts to delegitimize Obama in an attempt to weaken him, but also has the effect of ‘legitimizing’ violence. How long do we have to remain trapped in a futile death spiral of mutual destructiveness by these morons (!). I fervently hope the Secret Service is keeping an eye on some of these people.

As we’ve seen over, and over, and over, these people are tyrannical and appear to be incapable of either nuance or negotiation.

I wonder whether Rockefeller hasn’t become completely fed up with this sort of dangerous drivel, and sees that these jerks have completely overplayed their hand. And with news starting to whisper out about Very Large Banks involved in money laundering for terrorists (and dangerous governments), perhaps Rockefeller sees some progress on some of the issues that he’s been tracking for years….?

I had the same sense of that interview: he seemed to be hiding a twinkle in his eye. I hope that’s the case!

Boy you hit everything that was going through my head as I heard his words. I played that section of the interview over and over just because it really seemed this was beyond the “not in good faith” on health care. It was just interesting to hear health care in the same sentence as intel. Interesting as in “below the surface” interesting.